3 comments about Mary Tudor: The Tragical History of the First Queen of England.

1. David Loades wrote a biography of Queen Mary Tudor fifteen years ago. His earlier work has been revised and looked at afresh in this biography written for National Archives in the UK. His biography has been based primarily on original documents about Mary in the archives - and many of these have been reproduced in this publication as well. Its something that serious historical authors used to do in earlier centuries and its actually welcome to see the practice return as a way of preserving this information if the original is ever lost (and that happened quite a bit).
   
   Loades has come to some unusal conclusions about Mary with a fresh look at her life - but I would also say that this is a very balanced assement of this woman who lived though a bitter divorce and the overthrow of all she loved in her youth. If you have an interest in Mary Tudor this book is one you should pick up.
   
   Bloody Mary



2. David Loades is an authority on Mary Tudor and a fine author. Just a point of clarification on the earlier review, however; the first reviewer confuses Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart, two very different rulers. Mary Tudor was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII and the only surviving child of Catherine of Aragon. She succeeded to the throne in 1553 after her brother Edward VI and died in 1558. She has indeed been criticized for what many consider her overzealous push to return England to Catholicism, but in her defense, she was doing what she thought was right.
   
   On the other hand, Mary Stuart was the cousin of Elizabeth I (who was in turn the younger sister of Mary Tudor and daughter of Anne Boleyn) and was the one ultimately beheaded during Elizabeth I's reign in 1587. It should be noted that Elizabeth I herself was briefly imprisoned by Mary I (Mary Tudor) but was released unharmed.
   
   This is a fascinating period of history and this book is a good starting point to learn more about Mary Tudor's brief and sad reign. Mary Stuart's life is also very interesting and Amazon carries several good biographies on her as well.



3. There have been many biographies of Mary Tudor, the British contender against Elizabeth I for the throne of England. History being largely written by the winners, Mary Tudor became notorious for her lethal persecution of the Protestants, her unceasing efforts to deliver Britain to the Catholics, the loss of Calais to the fledgling British empire, and her decades long struggle to gain control of Britain that was to result in years of confinement by Queen Elizabeth and her eventual death at the headsman's axe at an advanced age. In "Mary Tudor: The Tragical History of The First Queen Of England", historian David Loades (Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Wales and an Associate of the Centre for Early Modern History at the University of Oxford) fully explores the dimensions of a complex life in a time of political volatility, religious wars, male domination of government, royal marriages for political advantages, personal devoutness, and a woman who was in many ways stronger than any of the men with whom she associated in her quest for royal power and Catholic supremacy. "Mary Tudor" is an articulate and very highly recommended work of impeccable scholarship that should be a part of every academic library British History & Royal Biography reference collection and supplemental reading list.

5 comments about A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain.

1. This book gave me a new slant on a subject that I thought I knew. I didn't appreciate the Air Marshall until I read what he accomplished in saving England from Hitler.



2. Anyone searching for a decent history of the Battle of Britain, a biography of Lord Dowding, insight into the development of radar OR the role of Winston Churchill in any of these will have to look elsewhere. In this poorly edited atrociously written volume the author manages to take fascinating material and reduce it to a sort of peculiar tabloid scandal sheet. It is painfully unclear what Fisher's intent is in writing this book, at one point it seems like he is trying to ressurect the reputation of an "unsung hero" but at the next he is doing his best to make fun of the very person that he has built up. The style of the book borders on the peculiar -there are no notes or citation, just a somewhat sparse "bibliography" yet we get large sections in quotation marks & whole mental dialogs that occur in the heads of the protagonists, who "chortle" and sneer at each other on every third page -don't get me wrong here, Fisher has written a very "post-modern" book, there really are no heroes, just different levels of fools, knaves and villains, all of whom steal from each other, cut each other out of the credit, thwart each other's ambitions, and generally behave like a nasty set of academics at a faculty meeting from hell. As an example of the egregious errors in this text, for some reason Fisher seems obsessed with tanks -even though he conspicuously ignores Churchill's role in their initial development. Again and again he talks about tanks "winning" the First World War & "breaking the back" of the German armies. This is odd, given that the tank arrives in the First War in September of 1916 -half-way through- and had little if any impact on the situation on the Western Front. Strangely, the role of the Royal Navy's blockade in "breaking the back" of Germany's will to fight seems to have escaped Fisher's notice... Fisher's cultural biases are also very much to the fore: at one point the English pilots spend their time between missions either throwing up or suffering from diarrhea. Their American counterparts in the meantime "chat". Fisher regularly allows his purple prose to wander into this sort of silliness & one is constantly wonderingif things really were as terrible (and silly) as he says how on earth did the Germans not win? In all seriousness, this is a very stupid and above all "little" book that simply isn't worthy of the subject. It is not just that readers will be mislead by Fisher's poor use of the material it is more that they are likely to not bother to pursue the many important themes that ctually emerged in the run-up to the Battle of Britain because they are so turned off by the shallowness of the schloarship exhibited here. One reads this book for the same reason one slows at car wrecks, out of a morbid interest in calamity.



3. Well worth buying since this area has not been properly covered to my knowledge. Disagreeably journalistic style.
   With all due respect to Dowding and none to the Air Ministry, someone should extend the book's scope and write a book on all the cock-ups and how they came into being and were tolerated. Examples: Leigh Mallory insubordination, no camouflage paint on planes, why 1932 jet wasn't developed, formation flying, no deflection shooting practice, insufficient swopping of fatigued/fresh pilots between groups, no calling back of semi-trained pilots who were jettisoned before finishing courses, etc, etc. Most of these errors were obvious before fighting started.
   A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain



4. A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain by David E. Fisher is the story of more of the more eccentric military geniuses, High Dowding, the Commander of RAF Fighter Command during The Battle of Britain. I mention eccentric because Dowding's bend-of-mind makes folks like Patton and Montgomery seem dead normal.
   
   In fact, if you combined Patton's belief in reincarnation and the afterlife with Montogomery's stubbornness, you get a pretty good idea of how - under normal circumstances - loopy this man was. Fisher describes a man that openly spoke of discussions with dead fighter pilots and who married a woman whose dead husband recommended to Dowding that he do so. The woman, by the way, had had dreams about a man named Hugh - vastly older than she - who had protected her as a child.
   
   So, was Hugh Dowding a nut case?
   
   It doesn't necessarily matter because this man also was responsible for some of the most innovative developments in aerial combat: multi-gunned monoplane fighters, radar and its associated ground-control infra-structure and the twin-engined radar carrying night fighter. Along the way, he also managed to stand up to Winston Churchill and maintain a cadre of the aforementioned fighters in England when the PM was bound and determined to lose them all in an effort to save France.
   
   And in return for these efforts, he was villified in person and behind his back; left in suspense as to his future for months on end, dis-obeyed by several of his immediate suboridinates and, ultimately, force out of service.
   
   The story is one of the most true examples of doing the right thing, despite and in spite of the potential repercussions. An absolutely excellent work. I only wish that Fisher had footnoted the book. By not not doing so, he hoists himself on his own petard of chastising those who mis-quote or fabricate.



5. I discovered Lord Dowding as the author did through Dowdings book "Lynchgate". The Battle of Britain, whilst not the saviour as most believe put a serious dent in Hitlers War Machine. Britain was to remain free and a "stepping stone" back into Europe.
   
   Without Lord Dowding none of this would have been achieved. Bombing had been shown to be the way of modern warfare and fighters stuck in a time warp could not catch them. Dowding's obstinacy and prescience established a data-linked system of radar, operation rooms and fighters. Without him the World may have been a much different place.
   
   Since owning and reading the book, I have lent it out to various people, some who admit to only occassionally reading! Everyone has been awe stuck by the story. Our debt of gratitude to those who fought the Second World War is aptly enhanced.

No comments about Chasing Churchill.

5 comments about The Meaning of Hitler.

1. There have been huge volumes written about Adolf Hitler. These have gone into great depth about the nature of this evil man. Haffner writes a concise brief book about what Hitler was really about. He shows the man in all his details including successes, and crimes. Haffner experienced Hitler during his early life in Germany. He then emigrated to Great Britain and went back to Germany after WWII. Haffner details all the essentials of this man and his history. He shows the true evil of this man, and how Germans were fooled into following him. In the end, Hitler treated the Germans as a enemy too, and sought to destroy the nation.
   
   This is my second book by this author. He was a good political historian of the German people. His treatment of this subject is right on the money. Each sentence is thought provoking and sums up the nature of this man.



2. As one who has read more than my share on the 3rd Reich and WW II in general, I didn't expect to be too surprised or enlightened by this book. I was wrong; it shows well how Hitler came to the point of being a demigod to many Germans and thus was able to eventually lead them (and Europe) to a destruction beyond their worst nightmares.
   
   The one thing in this book that struck me as an idea that was totally novel to me was the thought that with the near miss to capture Moscow in 1941 Hitler knew that the war could never be won in the manner which he wanted. Basically, Haffner contends Hitler now knew that World Domination could never be attained in his lifetime and he turned to his other goal (mass murder of Jews) as his leading motive in his decision-making process. It is a very interesting theory, especially how it helped lead to his mysterious decision to declare war on America. I wish I could read historians response to his conclusions, but I don't totally buy it (although it is a fascinating view). I think it gives Hitler too much credit.
   
   It may explain some of his strategic inertia but if he truly was resigned to defeat and wanted to kill as many Jews as possible before the end there is no reason for him to commit so many obvious strategic blunders that mounted on top of each other more and more. I think Haffner underestimates the effect of Hitler's drug use, sleeping habits, and his unshaken belief (maybe more than any other German!!!) in the "Hitler Myth".
   
   I hope someone else with more expertise can comment. Also, Hitler's decision to declare war on America had to be madness more than anyhting else.



3. I know so many people have complimented this book, but I have too also. The insights that Haffner puts forth explain much of the confusion of Hitler's moves during World War II.
   
   The book is powerful in its clear ascersions. It is also highly readable, though there are passages that must be read more than once to probe their depths.



4. Haffner offers a fresh perspective on Hitler, about whom most of us WWII buffs think we know a great deal. His major point--that Hitler was, in effect, a self-hating guy who turned his hatred in the end against the country he professed to love--is a very interesting viewpoint and one that can be argued and discussed forever. I'm encouraged to read more by this insightful writer!



5. It's really odd how Haffner has managed to cram so many valuable and unique insights into such a small book. Others have done a good job of reviewing this book already, so I'll just mention that I was particularly impressed with how Haffner explained, without excusing anything, how *rationally* one could have come to support Hitler.
   
   His treatment is devastating precisely because he is able to recognize what appeared to be the (early) Nazi successes, and is able to highlight just where National Socialist ideology really did seem to many Germans, even those who loathed anti-semitism, to connect with reality, and ultimately, become synonymous with reality. I find discussions like this a lot more plausible, and therefore enlightening, than those which portray the whole thing as a full-tilt collective freak-out from day one which never did many any sense whatsoever.
   
   Another discussion I thought was particularly enlightening revolved around Haffner's suggestion that Hitler in effect declared war on Germany itself; that he came to regard it as unworthy of him and the ideals he claimed to embody, and thus was worthy only of death in the end. In other words, his decisions near the end of the war, so disastrous to Germany and the German people, weren't so much the result of incompetence as of deliberate intention. If Germany couldn't, or wouldn't, be what Hitler wanted it to be, then it itself had to be totally annihilated.
   
   Anyway, this book has a lot of bang for the buck. (By the way, Haffner apparently was an early anti-Nazi dissident and was expelled from Germany [moving to England] some years after they came to power).
   
   Good luck.

5 comments about The Last of the Hitlers.

1. A rather sordid little peek show, set against the background of the post-Nuremberg truths about 'what really happened' and the shame of having to live with it.
   
   And, if, as modern liberal multicultural, 'we-are-all-simply-products-of-our-environment' lore would have it, does it matter if someone has Hitler's genes?



2. It's the very first book I have read about Hitler's family, and I found this book rather interesting. The author writes that Hitler tried his very best to hide the facts about his clearly dysfunctional family. Gardner tells us about Adolf Hitler's father who was born out of wedlock, and all the questions made about who was his real father. Alois Hitler sr. is described as a bully and adulterer. Alois jr. should have been beaten unconscious by his father, and Alois sr. should also have kept a string of mistresses whom he married when his current wife died.
   Adolf Hitler's mother protected her own son, but should have been cruel to her stepson Alois jr.
   Alois jr. turned out to be a bigamist, and he also comes across as irresponsible, selfish and a bad father to his English son.
   We also learn about Adolf Hitler's sisters Angela and Paula, while the author keeps tracking the führer 's family in the USA.
   I found this book to be well written and I learnt a lot I didn't know.



3. This is a pretty good book. However, it concentrates primarily on the authors search for the Hitler relatives in the US and not so much on information about them. It does provide a look at Adolph Hitler as a young man which is actually pretty interesting. This is apparently a rare book, so it took 6-8 weeks for delivery which was kind of a disappointment.



4. This is one of the rare books that holds you in riveting attention all the way through. The reader should try to view the history channel documentary on this subject. The book is well written and is five stars+
   farleyrd



5. This book is very entertaining. I bought it expecting to get answers on what became of Hitler's blood relations. I was disappointed in the amount of information concerning Hitler's nephew, and what became of him. But, it did have some fascinating evidence about Adolf's mother, father, and siblings. Worth a look, but, it's quite expensive for what you really get. I'd recommend checking it out from a library if you can.

5 comments about Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence.

1. The book is written well enough which is why I am giving it two stars, however its the content that speaks volumes...volumes about diddley squat. I tried to read this book with an open mind, however the more I read, the quicker I came to the conclusion there was no conspiracy to commit murder against Diana. How did I arrive at this conclusion? I used plain, old common horse sense and took a closer look at the real facts that are known about the case. Sorry, but I just don't buy into the author's rip current theories. Diana died in a tragic car crash at the hands of a drunk driver, being heckled by bunch of vultures who were salivating over every juicy morsel in her life and due to the fact that both she and Dodi were not wearing their seat belts. The French way of taking their time with severe trauma patients and crawling at a snail's pace to the hospital certainly didn't help matters either. If there was a murder and cover-up, where's all the others that move in the same circles who have been oh so done away with or was she the only one since JFK? Were there some mysterious events that occured? Of course, there are always mysterious events surrounding ANY death when it can't be explained down to the last minute detail. If you are into "way out" conspiracy theories this may be the book for you, otherwise there are other quality books out there on the life and tragic loss of Diana. I highly suggest shopping around.



2. I read this book as I thought there was a lot more to the death of Princess Diana then has ever been brought out. And, according to this book, there is. Since the house of Windsor is in reality German and the house of Stuart is Scottish and Diana is a descendent of the house of Stuart, it is more then understandable why certain members of the house of Windsor would want her out of the way since she was more entitled to the throne then Prince Charles. Then you have the military-industrial complex which, in reality, rules this earth. When Diana started the campaign against landmines, she was a very visible and known world wide person who was able to bring to the forefront the damage that landmines do to innocent people. Since Diana's death I have not heard anymore talk about banning landmines anywhere in the world.
   
   It is brought out that Henri Paul worked for MI6 and the CIA. That could have been in as much as money was deposited into his bank accounts that was a lot more then he was making at the Ritz. It is also alleged that his blood sample was switched with another sample taken from a suicide victim at the morgue. But, has anyone thought that Henri Paul was drinking that night knowing that he had a mission to perform and that was to make sure that Princess Diana was killed in an automobile accident? It is entirely possible that was the case. As for the carbon monoxide in Henri Paul's blood sample, it has been brought out that he was smoking cigars at the Ritz prior to leaving on his last ride. That in itself will cause an increase of carbon monoxide in the blood.
   
   There are many unanswered questions to the death of Princess Diana and we will never know the answers to them. If MI6 and the CIA want to cover up their involvement in the accident they most certainly could and no one will be able to find out if they were involved or not. The intelligence agencies of a lot of countries know how to keep something from being linked back to them and this could or could not be the case here.



3. The book was written in the form of a trial and the reader is the jury. Well, if I was on that jury, I would have voted for the defense. And if I was the judge, I would have thrown the case out after the prosecution finished his case for lack of evidence. The title is perfect "Hidden Evidence" as the evidence was so hidden that I couldnt find it in the book. The author makes many hypothesis but does not have any REAL support for his hypothesis.
   
   I believe that we have not heard the full and real story of the death of Diana and was hoping to find it here - but I was disappointed. Stay clear.



4. My beloved Princess Diana was most definitely murdered by the Establishment. This book gives hard facts to support this statement and points out inconsistencies within the investigation, both in France and England. Assasinations like this have been going on since the beginning of time, since John the Baptist. If you loved Princess Diana you must read this book. It will make you so sad to realize what was done to her.



5. Oh, for God's sake! What utter drivel. Diana wasn't bright enough to implicate anyone more substantial than a poorly trained manicurist.

   Here's a conspiracy question to think about -- if Diana was so committed to the anti-landmines issue why did she chose Dodi Fayed as a consort? Some of his relations are huge arm dealers. Hey -- maybe THEY knocked her off!

4 comments about The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy (Oxford Illustrated Histories).

1. The reader of this book will learn a lot about the British (and, before that, the English) monarchy, from the dark ages to today. Each monarch and dynasty are treated objectively and respect, trying to stay as close to their own time as possible and without dogmatic judgements. Hence the "villans" of the Monarchy (Richard III, Henry VIII, George IV) are shown to have a more positive side than one usually gives them credit for, while the "saints" (Henry V, Richard the Lion-Hearted, etc.) are shown to have their dark side as well.
   
   But the book isn't revisionist for the sake of being revisionist--it does acknowledge that, in the final accounting, history's judgement of the good or bad monarchs seems rather justified (e.g., while George IV did promote the arts, he was a debt-ridden bankrupt who treated his wife abominably). Furthermore, it doesn't judge the monarchs by our standards--by how "multicultural" or "feminist" or "anti-colonialist" they were, for instance. It correctly sees such judgement as distorting--as distorting as the Victorians' tendency to judge the past monarchs by *their* standard (e.g., which monarch won the most battles or gained the most colonies.) It does its best to assess the facts objectively--taking account of both the prejudices of the monarch's time and of our own.
   
   Take, as a typical example from the book, the case of George III. Having been unfortunate enough to preside over Britian's loss of the American colonies, as well as suffer from insanity in his old age, he was ridiculed by many contemporaries (especially American contemporaries) as a "tyrant", and "psychonalayzed" by our own generation--"proving" his insanity was (you guessed it) due to repressed sexual urges. While certainly not denying George III's tough position about the American policy, or his bouts of insanity, the authors note that, once the war was over, he told Adams that "nobody wanted this seperation less than me", but that, the seperation having been made, he would do his best for Britian and the new USA to be good friends. They also acknowlege his bouts of insanity and describe his bizzare personal and public behavior during it, but also note that it came (mostly) at the end of his days--after he was a loving, devoted family man and a very reasonable king for over 40 years. His insanity was viewed by contemporaries not with contempt, but with pity.
   
   The book's prose is clear, accessible, but--on the other hand--doesn't oversimplify when complexity and exactitute are called for (such as, for instance, when untangling the various claims to the throne that led to dynasty changes). Furthermore, numerous illusrations being the period talked about to life. Finally, the paper quality is superb, and the index is excellent.



2. The history of Great Britain since the 5th century is largely the history of its sovereigns, and vice versa, and this fat volume is a success on both scores. Beginning with the early Celtic kings who brought some form of organization to early British (and Welsh and Irish) society, Cannon escorts the reader through the island's history, reign by reign, from Rædwald of the East Angles to Elizabeth II, tracing the waxing and waning of the monarch's personal power, noting royal marriages and interments, wars and treaties, glorious victories and humiliating failures. A great deal of the personal is included along with the politics, as when the young Edward VI coolly notes the execution in 1552 of his uncle, the Duke of Somerset, and the exasperated Queen Anne's attempts in 1703 to reason with her Whig ministers. The numerous illustrations, many in color, add to the flavor of the narrative as well as the reader's understanding. This book may be the only general history of the British monarchy that any student would ever need.



3. The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy is a uniquely complete book. This is a book very worthy of Oxford, consisting primarily of chapters on royal and political history generally, interspersed throughout with boxed essays on each monarch, special topics, maps, photographs and paintings.

   This book begins with the murky beginnings of royalty in Britain, arising out of the chaos of the post-Roman world. Here we encounter names such as Aethelberht, Raewald, and Hywel Dda -- this book doesn't just concentrate as so many do on the English monarchies, but also on Welsh and Scottish clans, lines, and kingdoms. Here we find that King Eric Bloodaxe, the Viking King of York was followed not too many years later by Edgar the Peacable, king of Mercia and the Danelaw.

   With the inclusion of this extensive pre-Norman section, the book is a must for any British history library. Apart from that, the history is fairly basic -- well written, interesting, but no grand and new insights, more of an encyclopedia writ as an essay rather than articles on particular subjects (for which I am grateful--nothing so disjointed and unsatisfying in many ways as reading an encyclopedia). This however can make looking up topics a bit more difficult, but I've found as I've sought out one piece of information (using the very good index) I find much more (which is always to be desired).

   The final sections include chapters on Royal Residences and Tombs, Genealogies, and Lists of Monarchs, including Scottish as well as English monarchs.

   This book is filled with little bits of interest--for instance, an example of 17th century propaganda: 'In the absence of newspapers, radio, and television, other means of representing events and influencing opinion assumed greater importance. A pack of cards took as its unconvivial theme Monmouth's rebellion in 1685. The six of clubs shows Monmouth's entry into Lyme Regis; the seven of spades shows the duke's fate; and the five of diamonds that of his followers.' This caption accompanies pictures of playing cards with scenes of hanged or beheaded men, etc. An interesting means of information dissemination.

   A very worthy book, perhaps the only royal book a non-historian would ever need; a definite need for any historian or royal watcher.




4. This book is a must for those readers interested in the history of the British Monarchy. The authors and editors have masterly created both an historical perspective of the institution as well as a personal viewpoint which is both critical and sentimental. Some may be turned off by the length of this book, but once you begin reading, you'll wonder where the time goes. And the wonderful photographs and illustrations bring their words to life.

No comments about The Magus of Freemasonry: The Mysterious Life of Elias Ashmole--Scientist, Alchemist, and Founder of the Royal Society.

5 comments about Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life (Lives of the Left).

1. This is a biography that is worth reading, also to be recommended as a mentor reading for youngsters. This book shows how a young boy from Austria, whose life was shaped by the rise and fall of the nazis, came of age in twentieth century. He is a distinguished and unapologetically Marxist historian. He vividly recalls his cambridge days and the ideas that shaped his mind. I myself always like to read his other books for the historical wisdom that lacks these days. For example, as opposed to Bernard Lewis, who thinks that US is remote and uninterested in world affairs particularly in the middle east, Eric Hobsbawm writes "Our problem is rather that the US empire does not know what it wants to do or can do with its power, or its limits. It merely insists that those who are not with it are against it. That is the problem of living at the apex of the 'American Century'." (-p.410)
   This is the wisdom that I am talking about.



2. This book is a very good autobiography. Let first me state that I don't share a lot of Hobsbawm's politics (he was a member of Britain's Communist party for more than half a century). Yet I have always found him a very engaging writer. Maybe because of his age - he was born in 1917 - he is immune to the neomarxist, postmodern cant that have afflicted much of leftist writers since the 1960s. His writing style is instead simple and to the point. He tells the story of his life - the story of his parents, his accidental birth in Egypt, growing up in Vienna as a jew, the sudden death of his father and mother in a short time during his teenage years, his life as a young man in Berlin in the early 30s, his coming to England, his years in Cambridge, joining England's Communist Party, his rejection of Zionism, his life (wasted, according to him) during World War II, a visit to the Soviet Union in the 1950s, his position after the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, his later visits to Latin America - in a candid, simple and matter of fact, way. A very engaging book even if you disagree with his politics.



3. Hobsbawm's book is called Interesting Times rather than An Interesting Life, but that is just Hobsbawm being modest. After a lifetime of analyzing history from the perspective of a leftist, but generally even-handed, professor, he takes an opportunity to get a few things off his chest.
   
   He tackles the question of why he stayed a communist for so long, even after the Stalin years forced so many believers to reevaluate their views. He discusses America frankly, past (loves New York, hates the suburbs near Stanford University) and present (the reaction to September 11). He reminisces about wars, academia, and jazz.
   
   About the only question he doesn't address is when and why he changed the spelling of his last name. Unimportant perhaps, but curious. A readable, entertaining, and thoughtful memoir of an interesting man in a troubled century.



4. After a slow 150 pages in which Hobsbaum tells of his birth in 1917 in Alexandria to a Jewish father, son of an émigré cabinet-maker, and a Viennese jeweller's daughter followed by his youth in Austria and then Weimar Berlin and his stint at Cambridge, his story gains energy, if intermittently. Certainly Hobsbaum has led, after a rather tenuous period of living hand-to-mouth via the courtesy of relations and friends, a life more comfortable than that gained by many, communist or capitalist. His adherence to the Communist Party for so much of his life, from his profession in 1932 in Germany to his joining in 1936 and his allegiance throughout Stalinism and after the Hungarian revolt of 1956 motivates his four-hundred page apologia. Balancing his ideological commitment to a concomitant refusal to accept dogma results in a curious tension. How can a securely employed, well-travelled, multi-lingual, and nimbly minded individual stay loyal to a cause that rallied the poor and the intellectual while committing so many murders in its name?
   
   Hobsbaum argues well his reasoning. Surprisingly, little of his book recapitulates his scholarly mission, the fame of which derives first from his popularising of the earlier century's "primitive rebels," those who resisted capitalisation and globalisation and their own redundancy. Far too many pages provide lists of luncheons, flights, and friends. Hobsbaum warns the reader that little of his private life will emerge here, and his sons gain only a couple of sentences here and there, for example; their half-brother, apparently the result of an affair in-between his two marriages, is mentioned in half-a-sentence. Instead, as the blurb and the cover images trumpet, Hitler, Che, and the Soviet Man of Steel gain attention, and even more the milieu in which he and his internationalists roamed in between seminars and scholarship-again, little of the classroom to be found here. Hobsbaum actually gives little insight into the Great Men, but much on his mates.
   
   Idiosyncratically, the book's form skips about. Most of it tracks his own career, while latter chapters sum up his thoughts and chats in France, Italy, Spain, the Third World, and the U.S. One chapter, fascinating to me for its oblique mirroring of recent Ireland, takes on the land of his holiday home in Wales near the eccentric Clough Williams-Ellis, builder of among other wonders, the seaside resort of Portmeirion, later the site of the 1960s television series The Prisoner. In this chapter, the author carefully analyses the resurgence of Welsh separatism in that decade, to the point that it drove him to a safer and more anglicised portion of the principality in which to vacation. Hobsbaum dismisses "ethnolinguistic nationalism" and has little time for the 1960s legacy of individualism that led to the promotion of non-conformity at the expense of the social ideal for which earlier revolutionaries had struggled.
   
   Hobsbaum pinpoints the crucial difference between himself and later radicals. He is one of the last living intellectuals inspired to hoist the Red flag by the events in the year of his birth. A teenager when he cast his lot with the German communists just before Hitler's consolidation of power, Hobsbaum defends his faith in Marx. While later converts recanted once the allure of the anti-fascist crusade dimmed, Hobsbaum emphasises that he remained a believer after Khrushchev's decision to undermine the monolithic power of the CPSU in 1956-the second time that "ten days shook the world." "To put it in the simplest terms," he summarises, "the October Revolution created a world communist movement, the Twentieth Congress destroyed it." (201) Because Hobsbaum and his CP allies had been lied to, "something that had to affect the very nature of a communist's belief," the concealment of the truth about Stalin led to the instability of an presumed solid façade of political and cultural endurance, and foreshadowed the fall of the Wall.
   
   Which perhaps was a Potemkin village, but one where, Hobsbaum claims, protection against the harsh blows of capitalism and unrestrained greed did enable Soviets and those under their subjection to pursue a laudable goal of communist equality and worldwide fraternity. Hobsbaum cautiously tiptoes around the conflict of the dream with the reality.
   
   He acknowledges that communists like himself and their western parties never had to govern from a position of actual power, and therefore mitigates the decisions made by those who did rule in the name of the working class. No creed since Islam in the seventh century, he reminds us, spread so rapidly and so far across our planet.
   
   Speaking of this takeover, Hobsbaum elides complications. He compares the removal of communist ministers in western governments circa 1947 with their inclusion in non-communist administrations "in the countries under communist rule." (180) He laments the establishment of the Orwellian-monikered Cominform before continuing: `The Eastern regimes, deliberately not set up as communist, but as pluriparty "new" or "peoples' democracies" with mixed economies, were now assimilated to the "dictatorship of the proleteriat", i.e. the standard Communist Party dictatorships.' The author seems to skip over how a country can be "under communist rule" with a mixed economy and a pluriparty regime for long, before being standardised as a CP one-party dictatorship, given the logic of communist consolidation of power within a single party model. And, from my admittedly non-specialist understanding of those nations soon to be mortared into the façade of the Eastern bloc, such a pluriparty system was never seriously intended to survive, given the 1943 Tehran conference and the Cold War's surrender to the USSR of those Central and Eastern European nations as a buffer zone to defend Stalin's empire.
   
   Hobsbaum confused me with a statement about one of those buffer nations with which I have some familiarity, Hungary. Discussing an intellectual who claimed to be a victim of Soviet repression post-1956 who in fact was a Party organiser after the revolt, the author states: `Unfortunately in the course of those years, under the benevolent eye of the Kadar government, the sympathizers with the 1956 movement, that is to say the bulk of the communist intellectuals and the academics, quietly re-established their positions.' (145)
   
   Those less informed about Hungary at this time might misconstrue this passage, intended to contrast the fake refugee from the revolt with his comrades who remained, as praising the regime of Kadar, who pretended to side with the rebels only to turncoat to the Soviet invaders as they returned to crush the revolt, and to imply that the majority of those who were sympathisers with the rebellion suffered no harm under the Kadar regime. Although a communist revolt, the Hungarians sought neutrality apart from the Warsaw Pact and a mixed economy. These aims, Hobsbaum agrees, could not have been tolerated under Soviet domination, but he diminishes the struggle of those who sought a more human face for socialism by too often defending the Russian bear's slashes across the face of those who defied its imperial might, feigned as a blow for people's equality.
   
   Throughout his book, Hobsbaum distances himself from Judaism and Zionism, in the name of a greater identity with the oppressed everywhere. Yet his early identification with the position of the outsider, the alien, and the non-conformist (witness too his long championship in scholarship and avocation of an appreciation for jazz) could only have been gained by his Judaic stance, secular as it was, and his similar oppositional decision to embrace communism at fourteen. I find his lack of sympathy for Israel predictable therefore, but still would like to know what alternatives could have existed for his relatives who did not survive the camps, or those who did survive in a hostile Europe.
   
   His detachment from issues like these when they effect the individual may be attributed to his rather distanced position as that outsider, whether in Wales, in London, in Berlin, or in Alexandria (although his lectureships at the New School in New York City, at Stanford and the Getty Center, or his frequent global trips in search of like-minded companions sounded quite enjoyable to me). He claims that after his forties, whatever happened of note in his life was inside his head, and these transatlantic odysseys merely widened his intellectual horizons. Or maybe not, as he remained loyal to the Cause throughout the Cold War, despite New Labour, and now in spite of Bush. His chapters on the rest of the world outside the dons' room and the overseas seminar open up many intriguing insights, but I never felt that Hobsbaum was quite on the same level as us proles.
   
   A sample, taken from a discussion of the Party's `cultural group' protesting in 1956: `The Indo-Scandinavian intellectual Palme Dutt, one of those implausibly tall upper-class figures one occasionally meets among Bengalis, belonged through his mother to an eminent Swedish kindred-Olaf Palme, the socialist premier assassinated in 1986, was another member.' (208-9) This, like his analogy of labeled decanters in "the combination room" at Cambridge to keep dons from confusing their port and their sherry, speak of a privileged world in which Hobsbaum has earned his eminence, and one where, his communism to the contrary, he continues to thrive. It is natural for any of us to write from the position we know, so I don't mean to criticise the laurels which Hobsbaum has earned, but I do wish to point out that, as he confesses, `somewhere inside of me there is a small ghost who whispers: "One should not be at ease in a world such as ours." As the man said when I read him in my youth: "The point is to change it."' (313). However, he interprets the world marvelously--if evasively.
   [Review edited from an on-line essay for the Belfast-based journal The Blanket.]



5. Much as I admire Hobsbawm's histories of Europe and "invention of tradition", I felt, when reading this account of a long life, as if the author is evading his own personality, his own roots, seeking refuge in apostolic and childish occupations without having a real sense of humour, and setting to write his own history and diaries without a keen talent to face and practice life and times as it realy faced him in a sensitive, humam attitude: The Holocaust, of which he hardly makes a note, and with it Jewish collective fate, both in Nazi Germany and in his beloved Soviet Russia. Moreover(on page 295 in the Abacus paperback edition), he makes a rather stupid, or perhaps malicious comparison between Stalinist Russia, Vichi France and the State of Israel. He does mention the great Israeli Historian, Prof. Jacob Talmon, as the only person giving him a helping hand in hard times, but has other than that only bad language and simple, narrow thoughts about the only place on earth which has opened welcoming doors to ANY Jew escaping Nazi Europe, not only to a lucky, selected few which had landed elsewhere.
   Similar opinions are widespread in Europe today (and in academic circles in Israel too). I for one welcome any debate on Israeli policies. But In Hobsbawm's book there isn't any. Only harsh, cold, unjust remarks, which stand in harsh dissonance to his kind description of almost anything and anyone associated with left-wing English Sports or British Jazz. Pity how Brecht's poem which he likes so much ("An die Nachgeborenen")could apply to this "unfriendly" autobiography of a great historian and scholar.

No comments about A History of Clan Campbell: Volume 2: From Flodden to the Restoration.